On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 6:44 AM, Adrian Crum < adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com> wrote:
> I must be confused. If the goal was to give CSVRecord a Map interface, > then that would include the interface's put method. > I recall getting some pushback on making record implement Map<String,String>. The ugly part is that a 'non-headered' record would have to give reasonable values for all of the Map API. With toMap() that's just one API. > If we don't support the Map interface, then what is the point of this > change? My original use case: I have duplicate implementations in my app to take a record and to take a Map, not OO. If I have toMap() OR record implements Map<String,String>, then all I need is my Map based impl and I can drop my record based impl. Gary > > > Adrian Crum > Sandglass Software > www.sandglass-software.com > > On 1/21/2014 6:36 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: > >> Le 21/01/2014 12:20, Adrian Crum a écrit : >> >>> This looks really ugly. How do I update the CSVRecord using Map.put()? >>> >> >> Shouldn't the record be read only? As the result of a parsing it's not >> intended to be modified. >> >> Emmanuel Bourg >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > -- E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
